[AccessD] Yes. Another Silly Access Question.

Heenan, Lambert Lambert.Heenan at AIG.com
Mon Oct 27 15:57:58 CST 2003


Frank,

You have my sympathy. Nothing worse (or more stupid and counterproductive)
that a "senior management" walla who does not know how to design a database
but is arrogant enough to tell you that it has to be done "this way". I
wonder if she would be just as willing to tell an aeronautics engineer how
to design a wing as she is evidently prepared to tell you how to design a
database.

Depending on what level of oligarchic management is in you company I'd still
say that you should at least go on record as saying that the database way to
do it is "This" and the marketing department's way is "That", and as they
decline to share with you what their reasons are you are hampered in
building a database that will do what they want in an efficient manner. 

Management has no excuse for hiding from you their reasons for wanting a
certain result. Without knowing what they want and why you cannot hope to
make a system for them that will work. It is fundamentally "your department"
to know the whys and wherefores of their hopes for a developing software
system. To keep you in the dark is to guarantee that trouble will be the end
result, sooner ot later.

Lambert

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Frank Tanner III [SMTP:pctech at mybellybutton.com]
> Sent:	Monday, October 27, 2003 3:06 PM
> To:	Access Developers discussion and problem solving
> Subject:	Re: [AccessD] Yes.  Another Silly Access Question.
> 
> Unfortunately, in this case, yes.  Apparently she has
> special needs for each of the tables being seperate. 
> When I ask her why, I get the "not your concern or
> department, do it the way you were requested" answer.
> 
> --- William Hindman <wdhindman at bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > ...and if you went to your boss and told him that
> > the proposed design would
> > almost certainly result in more problems, not less?
> > ...but that there is a
> > much simpler way to do it that won't ...most Sr VPs
> > don't get there by
> > failing idiot detection tests :)
> > 
> > William Hindman
> > <http://www.freestateproject.org> - Do you want
> > liberty in your lifetime?
> > 
> > 
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Frank Tanner III" <pctech at mybellybutton.com>
> > To: "Access Developers discussion and problem
> > solving"
> > <accessd at databaseadvisors.com>
> > Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 2:30 PM
> > Subject: Re: [AccessD] Yes. Another Silly Access
> > Question.
> > 
> > 
> > > In this case, I'm not the inflexible one.  The
> > > Marketing department is.
> > >
> > > And since their boss is my boss, I lose....hehe
> > >
> > > Not all of us network engineers are inflexible.  I
> > am
> > > a firm believer in there being more than one way
> > to
> > > skin a cat.
> > >
> > > --- William Hindman <wdhindman at bellsouth.net>
> > wrote:
> > > > ...nah ...I was frowning at what I kindly refer
> > to
> > > > as a "notwork" type
> > > > design! ...sorry Frank but I go round and round
> > with
> > > > network engineers all
> > > > too frequently ...I'd rather take on reworking a
> > > > design by a newbie than one
> > > > done by a network type ...most newbies can be
> > > > reasoned with! :)))))))))
> > > >
> > > > William Hindman
> > > > <http://www.freestateproject.org> - Do you want
> > > > liberty in your lifetime?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > > > From: "Drew Wutka" <DWUTKA at marlow.com>
> > > > To: "'Access Developers discussion and problem
> > > > solving'"
> > > > <accessd at databaseadvisors.com>
> > > > Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 1:53 PM
> > > > Subject: RE: [AccessD] Yes. Another Silly Access
> > > > Question.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Is there a reason you have a big frown after
> > > > thinking I was on the Mark!
> > > > > <evilgrin>
> > > > >
> > > > > Again I concur.  The only reason I can think
> > of,
> > > > off of the top of my
> > > > head,
> > > > > for 'moving' records around, is if you
> > actually
> > > > have mobile databases.
> > > > Even
> > > > > then, you would still want a 'master copy'
> > sitting
> > > > there, in case one of
> > > > the
> > > > > mobile ones crashed.  I guess that's half
> > > > replication! <grin>
> > > > >
> > > > > Drew
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: William Hindman
> > > > [mailto:wdhindman at bellsouth.net]
> > > > > Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 12:07 PM
> > > > > To: Access Developers discussion and problem
> > > > solving
> > > > > Subject: Re: [AccessD] Yes. Another Silly
> > Access
> > > > Question.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ...I'm sorry Frank but this doesn't sound like
> > > > much of a "reason" at all
> > > > > ...you're violating data normalization rules
> > all
> > > > over the place and
> > > > creating
> > > > > tables where a simple flag field and query
> > would
> > > > be much more apropos ...I
> > > > > realize that you may not control things as
> > much as
> > > > you'd like but this
> > > > > sounds like something a network engineer would
> > > > build rather than a
> > > > database
> > > > > designer ...I thought Drew was on the mark
> > before
> > > > and even more so now
> > > > :((((
> > > > >
> > > > > William Hindman
> > > > > <http://www.freestateproject.org> - Do you
> > want
> > > > liberty in your lifetime?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > > > > From: "Frank Tanner III"
> > > > <pctech at mybellybutton.com>
> > > > > To: "Access Developers discussion and problem
> > > > solving"
> > > > > <accessd at databaseadvisors.com>
> > > > > Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 12:55 PM
> > > > > Subject: RE: [AccessD] Yes. Another Silly
> > Access
> > > > Question.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Because the back-end tables are going to be
> > > > accessed
> > > > > > by several people at once and we want to
> > avoid
> > > > ANY
> > > > > > possibility of duplication.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The reason why we're moving them to
> > different
> > > > tables
> > > > > > after processing is for marketing to keep
> > track
> > > > of
> > > > > > different functions based upon the data in
> > > > tables
> > > > > > specific to certain criteria.  IE. 
> > Customers
> > > > that
> > > > > > fill out a questionnaire go into one table,
> > > > customers
> > > > > > that decline to go into another table, and
> > > > customers
> > > > > > that would like to answer the questionnaire
> > > > later go
> > > > > > into yet another table.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The front-end itself has to be as generic as
> > > > possible
> > > > > > yet cover all contingencies based upon what
> > > > someone is
> > > > > > doing at a particular given point in time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- Drew Wutka <DWUTKA at marlow.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Just curious why you would want to
> > physically
> > > > 'move'
> > > > > > > the data, instead of
> > > > > > > just adding a field to track the 'status'
> > of
> > > > it.
> > > > > > > You could have a byte
> > > > > > > field where 0 is 'new', 1 is 'in use' and
> > > > other
> > > > > > > numbers could represent
> > > > > > > where the data 'ends up' as you put it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Drew
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Frank Tanner III
> > > > > > > [mailto:pctech at mybellybutton.com]
> > > > > > > Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 10:41 AM
> > > > > > > To: Database Advisors
> > > > > > > Subject: [AccessD] Yes. Another Silly
> > Access
> > > > > > > Question.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ok....Here we go.  Hang on to your
> > > > > > > bloomers....hehehe
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am using a sort of "check out" system in
> > > > order to
> > > > > > > ensure that duplicates are not contacted. 
> > It
> > > > works
> > > > > > > like this...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have a back-end database table that is
> > my
> > 
> === message truncated ===
> 
> _______________________________________________
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com


More information about the AccessD mailing list